It would be nice to have a common plugin interface that could work across Cinelerra, Blender, Kino etc etc, so that the work of writing plugins could be decoupled.
On 08/08/07, mark carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 18:26 +0200, Jonas Wulff wrote: > > > Unfourtunately every major change of the codebase makes it harder to > > re-merge with the 'official' cinelerra version. That of course leads to > > the questions how important that *really* is, considering that cinCV > > seems to be the version more commonly used... > > Look at it this way ... if you're not prepared for the code to divide, > then what's the point of having a fork? Forks are bad, m'kay. > > I would argue that everyone's interest would be best served if one were > to be subordinate to the other. Is HV happy to incorporate all of CVs > patches into his code? Or, would HV be happy to submit patches to CV, > and use CV? If he thought the quality of development of CV sufficiently > high, then he would in effect be doing himself a favour - because he can > submit patches, and let everyone else take care of the problem of > integration. This business of forking is creating a lot of unnecessary > work for everyone. > > > _______________________________________________ > Cinelerra mailing list > Cinelerra@skolelinux.no > https://init.linpro.no/mailman/skolelinux.no/listinfo/cinelerra > -- Regards, Martin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) IT: http://methodsupport.com Personal: http://thereisnoend.org
